Ortiz v. United States

Supreme Court of the United States
2018 U.S. LEXIS 3843, 138 S.Ct. 2165, 201 L. Ed. 2d 601 (2018)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The U.S. Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction under Article III to review decisions of the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF) because the court-martial system is judicial in character. A federal statute authorizing a military officer's assignment to a civil office constitutes an exception to the general statutory prohibition against dual office-holding, and the Appointments Clause does not prohibit a judge from simultaneously serving on two different military courts with no overlapping jurisdiction.

Facts:

Keanu Ortiz, an Airman First Class in the U.S. Air Force, possessed and distributed child pornography.
Colonel Martin Mitchell was an active-duty military officer serving as an appellate judge on the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals (CCA).
While serving on the CCA, the Secretary of Defense assigned Judge Mitchell to also serve as a judge on the Court of Military Commission Review (CMCR) under the authority of 10 U.S.C. § 950f(b)(2).
To address a potential Appointments Clause challenge raised in a separate case, the President nominated Judge Mitchell to the CMCR under 10 U.S.C. § 950f(b)(3), and the Senate confirmed the appointment.
After his presidential appointment to the CMCR, Judge Mitchell participated as a member of the CCA panel that heard and decided Ortiz's appeal.

Procedural Posture:

A military court-martial convicted petitioner Keanu Ortiz of possessing and distributing child pornography and sentenced him to two years' imprisonment and a dishonorable discharge.
Ortiz, as appellant, appealed the conviction to the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals (CCA), an intermediate appellate court.
A three-judge panel of the CCA, which included Judge Martin Mitchell, affirmed the court-martial's decision.
Ortiz, as petitioner, sought review from the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF), the highest court in the military justice system.
The CAAF granted review on the issue of whether Judge Mitchell was disqualified from participating in Ortiz's appeal due to his simultaneous service on another court.
The CAAF rejected Ortiz’s claims and affirmed the CCA's judgment.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

First, does the Supreme Court have appellate jurisdiction under Article III to review decisions of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF), a non-Article III court? Second, does a military judge's simultaneous service on a Court of Criminal Appeals (CCA) and the Court of Military Commission Review (CMCR) violate either the federal statutory prohibition on dual office-holding or the Appointments Clause?

Opinions:

Majority - Justice Kagan

Yes, the Supreme Court has jurisdiction. The Court's appellate jurisdiction is not limited to Article III courts and can extend to other judicial systems that are sufficiently 'judicial in character,' such as state, territorial, and D.C. courts. The court-martial system, with its deep constitutional and historical roots and its function of adjudicating criminal cases with extensive procedural protections, stands on similar footing and is therefore subject to the Court's appellate review. No, the judge's dual service was not unlawful. The statutory prohibition against military officers holding civil offices (10 U.S.C. § 973(b)) contains an exception for service that is 'otherwise authorized by law.' Congress provided such authorization in 10 U.S.C. § 950f(b)(2), which explicitly permits the Secretary of Defense to assign CCA judges to the CMCR. The President's subsequent appointment of Judge Mitchell did not negate this prior, lawful assignment. Furthermore, the Appointments Clause does not create a per se rule against dual office-holding. Ortiz failed to show how Judge Mitchell's status as a principal officer on the CMCR could create 'undue influence' over his inferior officer colleagues on the CCA, especially since the two courts have entirely separate jurisdictions.

Concurring - Justice Thomas

Agreed, the Supreme Court has jurisdiction. This conclusion aligns with the Founders' understanding of judicial power, which is exercised when a tribunal adjudicates core private rights to life, liberty, and property. The CAAF exercises such power. While Article III vests the 'judicial Power of the United States' exclusively in federal courts, military courts represent a unique, historically recognized exception rooted in Congress's constitutional authority over the armed forces. Because the CAAF exercises a judicial power—even if outside Article III—its decisions can be reviewed under the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction.

Dissenting - Justice Alito

No, the Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction. The Court's appellate jurisdiction is limited to reviewing the lawful exercise of judicial power. The CAAF is an Executive Branch entity, not an Article III court, and therefore cannot exercise the judicial power of the United States. Military tribunals have always been understood as instruments of executive power to maintain discipline, not as independent courts. The established exceptions allowing review of territorial and D.C. courts do not apply because those courts exercise the judicial power of their own distinct governments created by Congress, whereas the CAAF is part of the U.S. Executive Branch. Because the CAAF does not exercise judicial power, its decisions cannot be appealed directly to the Supreme Court.

Analysis:

This decision solidifies the Supreme Court's supervisory role over the military justice system by affirming that it is a 'judicial' system for purposes of Article III appellate review. The ruling establishes that the 'judicial character' and historical pedigree of a non-Article III tribunal are central to the jurisdictional analysis, potentially broadening the scope of the Court's appellate power. However, the majority explicitly cabined its holding, stating it does not necessarily extend to adjudications by administrative agencies. On the merits, the decision reinforces Congress's broad authority to structure the military justice system, allowing specific statutes authorizing certain conduct to override general prohibitions on dual office-holding.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Ortiz v. United States (2018)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature